Wakilii

Burhani Engineering & Cylinder Manufacturing Limited v Safe Gaz (U) Limited (Civil Suit 899 of 2020)

High Court · [2023] UGCOMMC 131 · 2023 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract and recovery of outstanding sum
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with recovery of outstanding sum, general damages, interest, and costs

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The High Court Commercial Division held that the plaintiff established on a balance of probabilities that the defendant owed US $17,463.36 for supplied gas cylinders under their business arrangement. The defendant, having failed to appear at trial despite proper service, did not rebut the plaintiff's documentary evidence of delivery, partial payment, and reconciled accounts. The court awarded recovery of the outstanding sum, general damages for inconvenience caused by the breach, and interest.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with recovery of outstanding sum, general damages, interest, and costs

Facts

In 2016, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a business arrangement whereby the plaintiff supplied gas cylinders to the defendant on credit with payment deposited to a transaction account. In 2019, the parties agreed that the plaintiff would supply 2,000 pieces of 6kg gas cylinders for US $33,040 VAT inclusive, with US $10,000 down payment and the balance within 45 days of delivery. The cylinders were delivered on 29 October 2019. The defendant made partial payments totaling US $18,500 but failed to pay the remaining balance. After reconciliation of accounts including past transactions, the plaintiff determined the outstanding balance was US $17,463.36 and made demands for payment. The defendant claimed defects in 172 cylinders and that it had supplied gas worth US $1,500 to the plaintiff in 2017, but acknowledged owing US $10,199 subject to issuance of credit notes and tax invoices. The defendant did not appear at trial despite proper service.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to payment from the Defendant
  2. What are the remedies available

Orders

  • The Plaintiff is entitled to recover the outstanding balance of US $17,463.36.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded General Damages of US $5,239.62.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded interest of 12% per annum on the outstanding balance from the date of filing this suit until payment in full.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded interest of 6% per annum on the general damages from the date of this judgment until payment in full.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded the costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Proceedings — Order 9 Rule 20(1)(a) — Requirements for Proceeding Ex Parte
Where the plaintiff appears and the defendant does not appear when the suit is called for hearing, and the court is satisfied that the summons or notice of hearing was duly served, the court may proceed ex parte.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Civil Proceedings — Balance of Probabilities
In civil proceedings, the burden of proof lies upon the party who alleges and that party must prove their case on a balance of probabilities. Even where the matter is not defended, the plaintiff must prove the case on the balance of probabilities.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Parties Bound by Pleadings
Parties are bound by their pleadings which form part of the record, and the court is bound by what the parties have stated in their pleadings as to the facts relied on by them.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Entitlement to Payment — Strict Proof
Where payments were delayed and the figure was pleaded and not challenged by the defendant, and the plaintiff adduces evidence of delivery, partial payment, and reconciled accounts showing the outstanding sum, the plaintiff has proved the claim to the satisfaction of the court.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Principles — Purpose and Award
General damages are such as the law presumes to be the direct natural or probable consequence of the act complained of. To be eligible for general damages, the party must have suffered loss or inconvenience to justify the award. The purpose of contractual damages is to place the party which suffered loss by reason of the breach in the same position they would have been had the contract been properly performed.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Court's Discretion — Rates
Under section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, the court has discretion to award interest. The basis of awards of interest is that the defendant has taken and used the plaintiff's money and benefited. The court may award different interest rates on the principal sum and on general damages.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Costs Follow the Event
Costs ordinarily follow the event and a successful litigant receives costs in the absence of special circumstances justifying some other order. Where the successful party has been guilty of misconduct, an order of costs may not be granted.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (11)

  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Parted Struggle Ltd v Pan African Insurance Co. Ltd (1990) ALR 46
  • Roko Construction Co v Attorney General (HCCS 517 of 2008)
  • Stroms v Hutchinson [1905] AC 515
  • Musisi Edward v Babihuga Hilda [2007] HCB 84
  • Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850
  • Premchandra Shenoi & Anor v Maximov Oleg Petrovich (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2003)
  • SIETCO v Noble Builders (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1995)
  • Harry Ssempa v Kambagambire David (HCCS 408 of 2014)
  • Iyamuleme David v Attorney General (SCCA No. 4 of 2013)
  • Anglo-Cyprian Trade Agencies Ltd v Paphos Wine Industries Ltd [1951] 1 All ER 873

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Burhani Engineering & Cylinder Manufacturing Limited v Safe Gaz (U) Limited (Civil Suit 899 of 2020) [2023] UGCommC 131 (30 November 2023)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.